TMS analyst Simon Hughes has given his marks out of 10 for the England players.

Michael Vaughan - 6/10

Alastair Cook - 7/10

Ian Bell - 7/10

Kevin Pietersen - 4/10

Paul Collingwood - 7/10

Ravi Bopara - 3/10

Matt Prior - 5/10

Ryan Sidebottom - 6/10

Steve Harmison - 8/10

Matthew Hoggard - 7/10

Monty Panesar - 4/10

James Anderson - 4/10

Stuart Broad - 4/10

See BBC SPORT | Test Match Special Blog

I think Harmison is rated a little too high but the rest seem fair to me.Those marks show why we failed as there are too many people with below average marks.

I would have said that Harmison should have got a 7 and Colly should have got a 6.

Other than that lots of below par performances all round. Although there are a lot of negatives at least there were some positives to come out of the tour. The players need to show against NZ that they can turn this around because I would imagine there wont be too many changes from this party to the one that tours NZ, weather thats right or not is another matter.

__________________
Mark.

Well Anderson getting the same marks as Broad is just nonsense. As debuts go Broad's was pretty impressive particularly the mental strength he showed in dealing with then adjusting to being twice warned for running on the pitch in his first couple of overs. On a dead track he kept it under 3 an over and bowled fewer 4 balls than a veteran of 20 tests and countless ODI's Anderson generally manages in a 5 an over spell. Yes he's still raw and pretty one dimensional but he's not a liability in a 4 man attack which Anderson for all his qualities unfortunately is and if it's a straight choice between the two for NZ then it really should be no contest.

A 7 for Collingwood is also pretty flattering. Another modest series with the bat (also seriously underbowled by Vaughan as well as wasted in the slips) and there were some pretty soft dismissal's in there which is most unlike him. And the fact that Harmison surpassed everyone's pre tour expectations of another Ashes horror show does not mean he merits an 8. Yes it was a positive step in the right direction but if we are being brutally honest it was not really the display of a man with over 200 test wickets who should have been leading an inexperienced attack.

In terms of Vaughan's captaincy I was a bit more than "slightly dissapointed". It was poor and whilst people seem to be focussing primarily on the coach his position as captain must be under scrutiny. His inability to adapt his tactics to suit the conditions showed a surprising lack of flexibility (the refusal to use the useful medium pace of Collingwood and Bopara whilst he steadfastly bowled the quicks into the ground) and the "innovative" field changes every other ball really didn't help am ordinary attack find their rhythm. And the fields he set Monty were identical to the Giles keep the runs down whilst the quicks attack from the other end fields of a couple of year ago which when Monty was the designated match winner was a waste and allowed Sri Lanka to milk him to death without being forced to take any risks. Batsmen like Jayawardene and Vandort (who for some reason was getting fields you'd set to Chris Gayle in full flow with men set back on the fence from ball one) don't get flustered and make errors if they're not hitting boundary's and the somewhat overpraised conservative Ashes fields were never going to work.

Good players don't run down the pitch, as bad as Anderson was - Broad was no better.

OK so Broad was a debutant, Anderson has played 20 tests over a long period of time, hardly ever given a chance to bowl himself into any sort of form.
As for Vaughan he did not inspire his team, it looks as if he should think of making way like Fletcher did , or at least consider is he really hungry enough for cricket to be leading the England side.

All the players are flattered by these ratings.
Harmison - 7
Hoggard - 7
Collingwood 7
Cook - 7
Vaughan - 6
Bell - 6
Panesar - 5
Pietersen - 5

And the rest between one and two, the side is a disgrace, as are the selectors - and Moores should resign with immediate effect.
The poor marks for the batting is because the collapsed when it mattered when there was still a chance to square the series.

__________________
Ern

I don't think Harmison deserves anything more than a 7, if that. All he did was bowl better than he used to in the last 18 months and that is not saying a great deal. I did not see him setting anything on fire.

Interesting that Pietersen got only 4, which is about right. Looks like the cracks are beginning to show?

Pity about Broad, but I would not write him off yet. I think that he is still recovering from those six sixes.

Come off it Ern. Anderson's bowling in the second innings was just abysmal (1-128 off only 23 overs) you can make all the excuses for it you want but it simply was not a performance of a bowler who belongs in the test arena. On an even flatter track Broad was going at around 1.5 runs an over less and also looked far more threatening challenging proposition for the Sri Lankan batsmen who at times were troubled by the bounce he generated despite the slowness of the surface. Sorry Ern you clearly rate Anderson (considerably more than me) but the harsh reality is he got given an opportunity this summer (4 tests on the spin) and got progressively worse and increasingly wayward.

(Oh and there have been considerably better more experienced bowlers than young Broad warned for running on the pitch; Ambrose and McGrath to name just a couple)

For a start engs, I am not defending Anderson, he has not made the most of his very limited opertunities - 20 tests in 5 years on the international stage, for 18 months he never got a game but was selected in the squad - he could have been bowling valuable overs for Lancashire.

Broad does not look a bowler who would threaten world class batsmen, Anderson for all his faults is the more likely to get wickets in the long run IMO, myself I think Anderson was left on the sidelines to long and has not played enough cricket on a consistent basis to get into any sort of form.
Myself I would not lose any sleep if either did not get into the side again in the forseable future.

__________________
Ern

Cricinfo have produced a different verdict: 6 players are marked lower (massively lower in the case of Harmison and Collingwood) whilst Sidebottom and Broad finally get more credit,

Michael Vaughan - 6/10 - 5/10

Alastair Cook - 7/10 - 7/10

Ian Bell - 7/10 - 6/10

Kevin Pietersen - 4/10 - 4/10

Paul Collingwood - 7/10 - 4/10

Ravi Bopara - 3/10 - 3/10

Matt Prior - 5/10 - 5/10

Ryan Sidebottom - 6/10 - 7/10

Steve Harmison - 8/10 - 6/10

Matthew Hoggard - 7/10 6/10

Monty Panesar - 4/10 - 4/10

James Anderson - 4/10 - 3/10

Stuart Broad - 4/10 - 5/10

Cricinfo - Overestimated England slip further

Not sure how sidebottom gets a 7 (averaging over 60!!! I know a couple of chances were missed off him but really) also he was not the only unlucky bowler in this respect.

My boy Monty must really have come of age if he can go on a trip at 25 years old, take more wickets than anyone else in the team, and still get a lower mark than all the other bowlers and only 1 more than the out of sorts Bopara!!